Rebecca Paul MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To build on the excellent points made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chichester, does this not fundamentally come down to the fact that the CPS is made up of civil servants? They are not meant to tell the Minister that they are wrong or right. That is not their job. I feel those on the Government Benches are misunderstanding the role of civil servants.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that explanation. I hope she will bear with me as I try to take it on board. Clauses 1 and 2 amend the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 so that a defendant charged with an either-way offence is no longer able to elect trial by jury. As was clearly established earlier today, that right to elect is entirely abolished by clause 1. Instead, it will be for the magistrates court alone to decide where the case should be tried; it can either remain in the magistrates court or go up to the Crown court. Clause 2 deals specifically with situations where there is a written indication of a guilty plea. Section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, as inserted by section 6 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, sets out that the court can, on the material before it, without any hearing or representations, be satisfied that it is highly likely that, were the accused to plead guilty at summary trial of the offence in question and be convicted, the court would commit the accused to the Crown court for sentencing. Section 17ZB(5) then provides the accused with the opportunity to object to being sent to the Crown court for trial for the offence. Clause 2 amends that so that the accused and the prosecutor do not have the option to object and can instead only make representations as to whether the sentencing powers of the court would be adequate. I note that “Crown Court” in the original section 17ZB is replaced with “court”. I assume that that refers to either the magistrates court or the Crown court, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation and explanation of that quite technical point, and of how it works with the Crown court bench division in the mix. The Bill’s explanatory notes suggest that it just means the magistrates court, but I went through the law— I should say that I am not a lawyer, but I dug it all out and read it—and, like a lot of Committee members, I am thoroughly confused. Normally, if something is logical and makes sense, I can follow it, so I am worried that it does not quite tie together. I am worried, even though I cannot quite articulate why, that the fact that the section will now just say “court” introduces some ambiguity. How is that defined? Quite often, these little bits of detail can be the speck of sand in the eye that can cause more problems than we realise. This is a very technical issue, and I appreciate that it is difficult to go into it here and that the Minister is very good on the technical side of things—we have worked together on other things with very technical points, so I know that she is very thorough—but I think it is worth going through it again and making sure that the whole thing hangs together, so that we do not end up in a situation where the wrong place is doing sentencing or the wrong estimate of a sentence is made, and there is no way to unwind it. I am just a bit worried that there is potential for some problems to come out of this. I appreciate the Minister’s helpful clarification that section 17ZB has not yet been commenced. However, if it had been, or if it were to be in future, it would, in a similar way to clause 1, remove powers and rights from defendants and give them less choice in how justice is dispensed in their case—essentially, a roll-back of rights. As I mentioned, I think we need to look at what will happen if the sentence estimate is wrong and how that will work its way through. I thank the Minister for explaining that the provision is procedural, but it still strips people of the right to object and replaces it with the much weaker right merely to make representations. The explanatory notes are really clear on that point, even if they are not clear on a lot of others. They say that the changes made in clause 2 “remove the ability of the defendant or the prosecutor to object to the case being sent to the Crown Court for sentence”, and instead create “a process for each to make representations about whether the magistrates’ court’s sentencing powers would be adequate.” That might have no impact if the section is never commenced, but if it ever is commenced, and we do not make sure that we have got clause 2 right, it may cause a problem and prioritise convenience over procedural protection. When someone’s liberty, livelihood and reputation are at stake, it is a serious thing indeed to say that they may no longer object and may only make representations. Once again, the defendant is being moved further from the centre of the process, and the state closer to it. That is not right. Earlier in today’s proceedings, the Minister was reminded from the Opposition Benches that the legal system is balanced in favour of the defendant. That is not the spirit in which this change is being made. Indeed, that is the common thread running through clauses 1 and 2: at every stage, the defendant’s agency is reduced and the system’s convenience is elevated. The Government call that reform and improvement, but it is not; it is a distortion of our centuries-old legal protections. There is a broader point here about confidence in the justice system. If the Government’s answer, again and again, is that defendants should simply trust the state’s estimate of seriousness, trust the allocation decision, trust the sentencing forum and trust that everything will work out in the end, that is not a strengthening of justice. It is a narrowing of the safeguards that make justice legitimate in the first place and will do nothing to address the backlog, which I recall was supposed to be the rationale for making these changes in the first place. Clauses 1 and 2 in combination are not what is required to address the Crown court backlog. It appears that the backlog may be starting to come down already, as a consequence of uncapped sitting days and other changes that have been implemented, so why are the Government not taking a more cautious approach and exhausting all the good ideas that we have heard from expert witnesses before taking a sledgehammer to jury trials? Obviously, the first problem to address is the fact that up to 24% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day, and getting the many defendants who arrive late to court there on time would be transformational. Why are we not solving those much more straightforward issues before pressing ahead with exceptional structural reform? We need to get the basics right, address inefficiencies and, most importantly, listen to those who know how to do it, such as the Bar Council and circuit leaders, and learn from the courts that are already making progress, such as Liverpool. The Government are absolutely right to take the backlog issue seriously, but it is wrong to think that limiting jury trials will improve the situation. It could make the whole situation worse by creating years of transition and uncertainty and by moving one backlog from the Crown courts over to the magistrates. Furthermore, the cases moving over will be more complex, more technical and more sensitive. The Government are about to create a massive backlog in the magistrates court, which will then start to impact on low-level cases such as speeding offences. I say that the Government should be more cautious because they have already accepted that there are other levers available. Ministers have announced that there will be no cap on Crown court sitting days next year, and that both the Crown court and magistrates courts will be funded at their highest ever operational level. That is much welcomed, but if the Government say that investment and capacity matter, why on earth would they not wait to see the full effect of those changes before pushing ahead with exceptional constitutional reform? The Opposition position on that has been perfectly clear. On Second Reading, the Opposition’s reasoned amendment did not deny that the backlog is serious, but argued that the right answer is to improve case management, encourage earlier pleas, increase sitting days, increase the hours per day that courts are able to sit through better use of technology and improve the efficiency of prisoner transport. Those are practical, common-sense reforms; they go with the grain of the system, rather than taking a sledgehammer to jury trials and then hoping for the best. The Government’s own impact assessment rather proves the point that this issue is as much about shifting pressure as solving it. It estimates that removing the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial would reduce crown Court demand by around 16,000 sitting days, but at the same time increase magistrates court demand by around 8,500 sitting days. The same document expressly recognises that reallocating cases to the magistrates courts is expected to increase the open caseload there and is likely to extend waiting times for hearing and sentencing in that jurisdiction. Even on the Government’s own figures, it is not some clean efficiency saving. It is a transfer of burden into a part of the system that is already under strain. That is why clause 2 is more important than it first appears. Clause 1 removes the right to elect. Clause 2 then narrows the ability to resist where a written guilty plea is involved. Piece by piece, the Bill is building a system in which more serious, either-way cases are kept down, defendants have less say and the magistrates courts are expected to absorb ever more complexity. Ministers may present each provision as a small adjustment in isolation, but taken together, they amount to a very significant constitutional and practical change. That change also carries transition risk. The Government are assuming that work currently taking place in the Crown court can be absorbed more quickly elsewhere. I know I am not telling the Minister anything that she does not already know, but the magistrates courts are not just a spare room in the system waiting to be filled. They will have to take more serious, more technical and more sensitive cases while continuing to deal with the huge volume of everyday criminal business that only they can process. If the Government get this wrong, they will not have solved the backlog. They will simply have displaced it and degraded the quality of justice in the process. My plea is a simple one: “Proceed with caution. Let the effect of unlimited sitting days bed in. Fix the operational failings that everybody in the system can already see. Get defendants to court on time. Keep courtrooms sitting. Use technology better. Learn from the parts of the estate that are already improving, but do not dress up the removal of long-standing protections as if it were the only grown-up response to backlog. It is not. It is simply the most drastic one.” That is why I cannot support clause 2. On its own, it may look technical, but in context it is part of a broader attempt to reduce rights, safeguards and the defendant’s role in how justice is administered. That is the wrong direction of travel.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would say Thursday.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Rural areas are facing a wave of unauthorised developments on land owned by Travellers, with little or no action being taken against them. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and 30 of my colleagues have been pressing for national support to give new powers to the police and local authorities to deal with this issue. Will the Minister meet us to discuss the issue, which is causing havoc in our precious British countryside?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone for their powerful and often personal contributions today. First, I want to recognise Michelle Dewar, the tenacious campaigner behind today’s petition for menstrual relief. She is a great champion for women suffering with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and I congratulate her on securing over 100,000 signatures—not an easy task, but it showcases the strength of feeling from many on this important topic. Endometriosis is a condition where endometrial tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. One in 10 women of reproductive age suffer with it, making it the second most common gynaecological condition in the UK. Common symptoms include chronic pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding, making normal activities difficult. It predominantly affects women during their reproductive years. Adenomyosis, an often overlooked condition, has similar symptoms, but is where the lining of the womb starts growing into the muscle in the wall of the womb. It is commonly diagnosed in women over the age of 30, but can also affect younger women, as we heard today. Similar to endometriosis, it affects one in 10 women, with nearly 70% of women waiting over five years to get a diagnosis. Michelle’s own journey with endometriosis began 24 years ago, causing her to miss school every month from the age of 14. Shockingly, it was not until she was 23, nine years later, that she received a diagnosis. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, her story is far from uncommon, with many women not receiving a timely diagnosis. It takes on average eight years and 10 months from the first GP visit to get a diagnosis. Women’s symptoms are often dismissed and normalised, leaving them to struggle on with their pain, without treatment, without understanding and without support. The lack of understanding and knowledge of what constitutes a normal period or menstrual cycle also delays women seeking help and can leave family and friends uncertain how to provide support. No woman or girl knows what a normal level of period pain is without input from others, and lack of awareness leads to her not being well equipped to advocate strongly for herself with medical practitioners. We also need to recognise that there is still embarrassment and stigma around talking about periods, which can add to the challenge of getting adequate medical care when something is not right. Recognising the challenges women face in their engagement with the healthcare system, in 2022 the then Conservative Government published the women’s health strategy for England, a 10-year programme committed to improving women’s health. The strategy seeks to address disparities in women’s healthcare and the under-representation of women in medical research. One of the strategy’s eight priority areas is menstrual health and gynaecological conditions, including greater awareness, earlier diagnosis and better treatment of endometriosis and adenomyosis. As we have heard many times today, all aspects of the lives of women struggling with those conditions and enduring awful pain every month are impacted. It affects their relationships, their overall wellbeing and also their careers, and such debilitating conditions impact on earnings in the long term. Office for National Statistics data published last year shows a drop in monthly earnings among women aged 25 to 54 diagnosed with endometriosis from one to five years after diagnosis, compared with the two-year period before being diagnosed with the condition. Average pay decreased each year post diagnosis, culminating in a £130 monthly reduction in the four to five years post-diagnosis period. Although it is likely that different factors contribute to this change, it is none the less worrying that there is such a statistically significant drop in earnings post diagnosis. Prompt diagnosis of these conditions is vital and the roll-out of community diagnostic centres will help immensely. Many of my own constituents stand to benefit from the recently opened community diagnostic centre in the Belfry in Redhill, which will deliver much needed extra capacity to perform diagnostic scans. That is exactly the kind of practical measure that can help women to get answers more quickly when their symptoms and pain suggest that something is wrong. When a woman is suffering symptoms that mean that she is unable to work, the current option available to her is to take sick leave. That option is available to any employee with any condition or illness that leaves them unable to work. It is a broad, non-discriminatory entitlement available across almost all conditions. From 6 April this year, following recent changes by this Labour Government, when a person is unable to work due to ill health, they are entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. It is also relevant to note that statutory sick pay is now available to all eligible employees, regardless of their earnings. The current approach to statutory sick pay therefore allows any woman who requires two to three days off every month due to endometriosis or adenomyosis to take the time she needs with sick pay. For that reason, the introduction of a specific menstrual leave is unnecessary as statutory sick pay already delivers what is being asked for. Statutory sick pay is the better mechanism to use, because it does not discriminate or restrict provision to highly specific conditions. Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis are just a few examples of conditions that are equally debilitating and involve regular flare-ups—so it is entirely right that they are covered too.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely right. I am explaining the current system and why we do not need an additional level of menstrual leave. What the hon Gentleman said is correct and yes, we opposed those changes. The approach taken in Portugal has been mentioned a number of times during this debate and in the petition itself, so it is important that I address the situation. Portugal introduced a menstrual leave policy last year, which gives the right to up to three days of paid leave per month for women diagnosed with endometriosis or adenomyosis and who suffer from severe and disabling pain. However, it is important to note key differences between the Portuguese system and ours which explain the difference in approach. First, in Portugal, the first three days of ordinary sickness absence are generally unpaid, with sickness benefit usually only starting from day four. As I have just explained, in the UK statutory sick pay now begins from the first day of illness. Portugal has created a diagnosis-specific exception within a less generous baseline sickness system. The implementation of the same policy in the UK would therefore not deliver the same kind of incremental benefit because our general sick pay framework already covers short absences from day one and does not require a sick note for only three days’ absence. It is also important to note that the protected characteristic of “disability” under the Equality Act 2010 may cover some women suffering from severe endometriosis or adenomyosis, depending on the effect that the condition has on their day-to-day activities. Where that is the case, they are protected from discrimination and their employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments can include changes such as phased returns to work, part-time working or flexible hours to support women to continue working when they are able to despite their condition. The Conservative position is that a specific menstrual leave is not required. We are comfortable that existing sick leave provisions and discrimination protections already adequately protect women suffering with these conditions and ensure that they can take the time off they require every month. However, that does not mean that we do not think action is needed. We urge the Government to do all that they can to raise awareness of how severe these conditions can be and ensure that the NHS provides early diagnosis and treatment. We need to end the situation where women spend years in agony with no answers and support, and where employers are ignorant of how debilitating these conditions can be.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I thank you all for being here. I know that this must be incredibly difficult. You are incredibly brave, and it is wonderful to see you channelling something that was so negative for you in a positive way, so thank you for that. We have focused a lot on jury trials, but there is a real opportunity here to think about what we need to deliver improvements in our judicial system, because the thing we all agree on here is that it is not working as it should. We might disagree on the best way to address that, but we do agree on the fact that change is needed in some form. What would you like to see in this Bill that is not there? What is needed to address some of the issues? Any of you who want to answer, please feel free to take the question. Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: It is a very big question. It is tricky, because I do not think that we can really ask for perfection; we are very much asking for a system that is bearable and has a bit of credibility about it. That just has to be centred, with lived experience at the forefront. So often, many victims, myself included, have said that it feels like it has gone so far to the defence side that it is no longer a justice balance. It has flipped so much on that side that I really want to urge you to consider that aspect: that it feels like the balance has gone in favour of the defence, essentially. In any decisions that you make about the Bill, just consider rebalancing that and ensuring that victims’ voices are centred in the decision-making process. If increasing magistrates to the three-year limit reduces the delays by even a small percentage, that can only be a positive thing. All those smaller elements will eventually snowball into more meaningful change across the entire sector. I could ramble on, so I will let someone else have a go. Charlotte Meijer: I guess the other thing to add, which has been discussed a few times already, is the training of judges and magistrates. We have to find a way to do that—you would not let an untrained teacher into a school—because they are making decisions that mean life or death. After my not guilty verdict, I tried to kill myself, because nobody believed me, clearly. There is a huge impact. Things do need to change. As I mentioned, I was a victim of rape. The rape did not go to court, because of many mistakes. The police offered to reinvestigate and I declined, because I knew what I would be going into and I did not want to go into that again, as it stands. A lot of that is about not just the courts, but the process leading up to it: the police and the CPS, and making sure that the police, the CPS and the courts are working together, which at the moment they are not. I am going through a three-year complaints process with the police, and they just blame each other. There needs to be accountability from start to end, because, while the Government have many different institutions that you deal with as a victim, you do not always understand it. You should not have to. I should not have to know that the CPS needs to do this and the police need to do that. It should be me coming in and other people understanding that journey for me and holding them to account. There are no consequences if the victims’ rights we have at the moment are not adhered to. I was failed on at least seven points of the victims’ rights, but there is nothing that anyone can do. It has gone up to the ombudsman, and they said, “Yes, they failed”—great.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Your letter says that this will result in quicker justice for victims, and that is why you support it. My question is: if that is not the case, would you not support it? Claire Waxman: It is the case. The Crown court is overburdened. You have heard Sir Brian Leveson’s analysis; it cannot continue in the state it is in. If we do not take appropriate cases out of the Crown court, then what is the answer?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is what we will be analysing over the next few weeks—whether it will or not.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q That suggests to me that if it did not save time, you would not support the proposal. Claire Waxman: But I cannot imagine it. If you are taking cases out of the Crown court that cannot deal with the pressure, that will save time.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for your time, Claire. If I am interpreting your answer correctly, your basis for supporting the removal of jury trials is that it will save time and allow victims to get justice quicker. Would your position change if that is not the case and those time savings do not come through? Claire Waxman: That is impossible to answer. We need to see it happen. You need to come back to me and say if it is not going to reduce—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Today, 58 out of 516 Crown court rooms are not sitting. Do you agree that it would be better to address that issue—and how would we address it?—rather than limiting jury trials? Kirsty Brimelow: May I deal with that briefly? Absolutely, if you open the courts, then the courts can hear the cases. Also, let us look at the reason for the lack of productivity. Our courts are just not sitting as many hours as they did in 2016 or 2017. We should get the number of hours back up, and cut out the delays even in the courts that are sitting. That includes looking at the defendants being brought to court late. We are collecting data on that, and it is an astonishingly high number. Around a quarter of the data we have collected so far shows defendants being brought more than five hours late to court. You attack that, do the type of listing that is working now, bring the investment in quickly—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am interested in your data. Do you see any differences in different groups electing for a judge-only trial? If you do see a difference—I am talking about age and various other protected characteristics—why do you think that there is one? Doug Downey: That is a great question. I do not have data on the different groups electing, but we often see high-profile matters trying to move towards a jury. We know that individuals with very technical defences or very technical legal approaches will sometimes go to a judge, so that they can have that expressed. It really depends on the facts of the case, as opposed to the kind of case. I do not have running data on that, so I hesitate to be categorical. The motivation for going to jury, or not, can change with the theory of the case, the approach of the lawyer and, ultimately, the client.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  The use of puberty blockers on healthy children is deeply wrong. Children given those drugs are being locked into their discomfort and put on a one-way pathway to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. All of that leads to a lifetime of sexual impairment, fertility issues, bone density loss and other catastrophic psychological and emotional impacts. No child put on puberty blockers at the earliest stage of puberty and whose natural puberty is blocked will ever have an orgasm or be fertile. That is what anyone in this room cheerleading this trial is supporting. In December, the Health Secretary said at the Dispatch Box: “Am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I am comfortable about that.” —[ Official Report , 17 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 929.] However, on 20 February, we found out that the MHRA had U-turned and was expressing serious concerns about the current trial. The issues it raised were not new, though, having been raised from the outset by many in this room. Making children infertile and harming bone structure are not minor points of detail, but fundamental safety flaws. That last-minute intervention raises questions about the rigour and diligence of the overall approval process. How did a trial with such potentially catastrophic health impacts make it through the research ethics committee approval process? Having looked through the minutes of the meetings, I can see that the committee members met three times over Zoom; nine out of 12 attended the first, only five attended the second and only three attended the third. What stands out most to me is the REC’s delegation to a sub-committee of approval responsibilities for such a profoundly dangerous trial. Section 4.2.24 of the REC governance policy document indicates that sub-committees can be used when “research proposals…present no material ethical issues”. I am therefore staggered that it took the decision to delegate approval responsibilities in this case.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  A key point to make is that potholes are often a symptom that roads have not been resurfaced at the right time. In reality, we have billions of pounds in community infrastructure levy funds that are sitting across the country, often just earning interest. They are not being invested in resurfacing roads or our drainage system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we can better spend that community infrastructure levy money and ensure that it is put into roads? That often means making sure that—

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I think we can all agree that tackling the rise in youth employment is very important, but I am concerned about the approach that is being adopted for that purpose. We are essentially taking money away from employers and then giving some of them some of it back. Has the Secretary of State considered, for instance, the use of existing levers in relation to employer national insurance? That would be an obvious way to address the issue and ensure that some of our young people are employed.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am incredibly pleased to speak in support of Lords amendment 38, which seeks to raise the digital age of consent to 16. I only wish we had much more time for this debate, as it deserves. For years, parents like me have worried about the harms of social media on our children, and the detrimental impact of excessive screentime. We have tried to manage it as best we can on our own. We have felt the sting when we have been told by others that responsibility fully sits with parents, and that good parents do not need the state to help them get this right, yet no one says that about alcohol, smoking or buying fireworks. In all those cases, it is acceptable for parents to be helped by sensible laws put in place to protect children from preventable harm, yet social media and excessive screentime are just as harmful as cigarettes, alcopops and messing around with fireworks in the street, so why would the state not step in on that too? I have three children, and it is fair to say that they love screentime. If I try to talk to them when they are glued to a YouTube video of someone else playing a computer game, they ignore me, completely engrossed. They do not want to go out in the garden, play with their friends in the street or play with toys. Instead, if given a choice, they would always choose to stare zombie-like at their tablet. Thankfully, I have kept them away from social media, but there is only so long I can get away with that. Staring at a screen for endless hours is not healthy. It prevents children from developing the social and cognitive skills they need in adulthood and is terrible for their mental health. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a mental health crisis, which started at the same time as the mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. It really should be a wake-up call. What does the future look like if our children’s most important relationship is with their phone? Their brains are literally becoming hardwired to respond to likes and shares, rather than human interaction and connection. Social media is doing exactly what it was designed to do: reeling our children in and feeding them content that often is not in their best interest but is highly addictive. We know this because we all experience it the same. Social media is not for children. We do not need any more time given over to consultation to confirm what we already know—

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response, but I would suggest that in future the appropriate Minister, who can actually respond to our questions, is sent to the House. Here is another straightforward question for him: have the Government declined to give the US permission to use Diego Garcia and other UK bases, including Fairford, to launch strikes on Iran?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to flag that reducing the number of houses being built in London pushes people in London out into constituencies such as mine. The Government say, “We’re building more houses so that children and grandchildren can stay close to their families,” but what happens is that those in London move into other constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really achieve the aim?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this really important debate. In my experience, nothing erodes public confidence in the planning system faster than development that is delivered with the promise of appropriate infrastructure that never materialises. People are often accepting and understanding of new homes being built if it is done in a thoughtful and considered way. What they are not willing to accept is development pushing local residents out of catchment areas for schools, it becoming impossible for them to see their GP, their homes starting to flood regularly, and no longer being able to get a seat on the train on the way to work. In my constituency, we face huge amounts of development with an absolutely ridiculous doubling of housing targets, all while London’s target comes down. Unfortunately, I see no signs of adequate investment in our local public transport to accompany this ludicrous target. As Members will be aware, the Government’s draft revised national planning policy framework is heavily tilted towards encouraging development around stations. I understand the logic to that. If we want to reduce car dependency and create opportunity, we have to build near public transport. To maximise the use of existing infrastructure, we have to build in more urban areas that are already well connected. If we want to protect high-quality green belt, we have to densify close to existing settlements. Those are sensible propositions, but the NPPF is too broad brush and does not discern between those bits of land close to stations that fit with these objectives and those that do not. Let us take Kingswood station in my constituency, for example. There is high-quality green-belt land nearby, yet the train service is far from ideal, there is no timetabled bus service and there are plentiful other brownfield sites and, indeed, greenfield sites that would be much better to build on first. I recognise the good intentions behind that change, and I support looking at land close to train stations first, but additional parameters are required to act as an appropriate filter to protect villages such as Kingswood. If the planning system is going to prioritise developments near stations above all other considerations, it must also be accompanied by extra investment and funding in transport capacity. If the infrastructure is not there or not credibly planned, the answer should be no. That approach would enable growth at genuinely suitable hubs while protecting small villages. On Gatwick expansion, I am concerned that Gatwick airport has been given the green light to operate a second runway without sufficient thought being given to what that means for surrounding public transport. Reigate station sits on a busy community artery, yet the Department for Transport has said nothing about the impact that millions of extra passengers heading down to Gatwick will have on the line or the station. The most transformational improvement for Reigate station would be achieved by extending its platform to allow additional and more efficient services. Back in 2020, a Network Rail scheme proposed the creation of a 12-car turnback platform to allow Thameslink trains to stop at the station and avoid the need for splitting and joining of trains at Redhill. I ask the Government to reconsider that project in the light of Gatwick expansion. Redhill is impacted, too, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what plans are in place for these stations and lines to meet the need for additional capacity and more frequent and reliable services. This is also a good opportunity to ensure that the facilities at those stations are fit for the 21st century and fully accessible, so that everyone can use them. On the topic of accessibility, I would like to raise the plight of Earlswood station. It serves a growing area, and one that could come under even greater pressure if the planning system encourages heavier development around it, yet Earlswood’s infrastructure is already creaking. Things have got so bad that the underpass was recently badly flooded and had to be pumped out. People are literally taking their shoes and socks off to get the train, and those with buggies, older residents and disabled passengers are effectively blocked from travelling. I am pleased to see that Network Rail has now replaced the pumps to help to address the situation, but there is still more to do in the long run. In closing, if the Government want public support for housing growth, they must improve support for public transport as well. Those two things must go hand in hand.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The key concern I hear from parents and carers in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages is that they fought for years, or are still fighting, to get support. Can the Education Secretary reassure my constituents that they will not lose the hard-fought-for support that they are entitled to?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) on a refreshing, measured, fantastic speech. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I expected a slightly different topic, but it was pleasing to hear so much about the importance of strong families. Maybe we can do this debate again and I will write a slightly different speech. Between us all, we will cover various aspects that are relevant and important. I would also like hon. Members to know that I, too, am watching season 4 of “Bridgerton”—a classic Cinderella tale—which is very enjoyable. Healthy relationships are underpinned by respect. In most cases, the way we would wish to be treated ourselves is probably a good place to start our relationships with others, but we continue to see high levels of violence against women and girls, as well as other kinds of abuse such as coercive control, with no real signs of reduction. That suggests something is going badly wrong, and the Government have rightly set challenging ambitions to address this huge societal problem. We very much welcome the Government’s recently published VAWG strategy and their ambition to halve such violence, and we hope it will build on the work undertaken by the previous Government. The Conservatives elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, and we committed over £230 million to the tackling domestic abuse plan from 2022 to 2025. That included quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, and it complemented the £300 million investment in the 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of the goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse. The previous Government also created two new offences: stalking and stalking involving fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. That made it easier for victims to hold stalkers to account. On top of that, we also outlawed upskirting to further protect women and girls, criminalised revenge porn and deepfakes, and introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and, accordingly, domestic abuse protection notices and orders. We are clear that robust action against offenders is vital in the fight against VAWG. Although relationship education in schools can go only so far in addressing male violence against women and girls, it nevertheless plays an important role in educating young people on what positive and healthy relationships looks like, and the importance of putting in place clear boundaries. Those skills are vital in navigating relationships, recognising potential abuse, including coercive control, and knowing how and when to seek help when needed. Relationship education was made compulsory in all primary and secondary schools in 2020. It has several core objectives: to foster pupil wellbeing, to develop resilience and character, and to ensure that pupils are happy, successful and productive members of society. In spite of that, shockingly, nearly three women every single week are killed by men, and many, many more are raped and abused. The risks and harms arising from the online world are feeding this problem. Pornography is available online at the touch of a button on smartphones. Let me be clear: this is harmful stuff that depicts strangulation, rape, violence and degrading acts such as spitting on young women. Any young man seeing such misogynistic content day in, day out will inevitably view women and girls differently. They will be more likely to see them as an object to use and degrade. By comparison, the relatively trivial amount of time spent learning the opposite in a classroom cannot hope to offset that. The single best thing we can do to stem the tide is to introduce a ban on smartphones in schools for under-16s and increase the age limit for social media to 16. That will not address the whole issue, of course, but it will massively help. The Conservatives have backed it all the way, and I ask the Minister to do so too. The Government’s proposal to ban strangulation content is welcome and a positive step forward. I am concerned that our strong desire to eradicate VAWG has led to boys and men being unnecessarily demonised. There is a difference between calling out abusive behaviour and labelling a whole set of masculine attributes as toxic. Masculinity is a wonderful thing—the yang to femininity’s yin—and it is certainly not toxic in the great majority of cases, particularly when it is not fuelled by online porn. Our answer to a genuine question about the abuse of girls has been to tell a generation of boys, “You are the problem,” and then we are surprised when that approach, instead of nurturing healthy relationships, creates resentment and pushes more young men towards the very online subcultures that feed off grievance and rejection. Instead, we need to positively embrace what being a good man, a good partner and a good father look like. Fundamentally, boys need positive role models from which to learn and model their own relationships. That is why fathers and other male role models are so important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that. When it comes to education on healthy relationships, we have seen an ever-growing load of subject matter covering issues from relationships to mental health. Good RSHE can be a protective factor when it is age-appropriate, factual and taught impartially, but it is also important to recognise that schools should not try to replace the education that should be the family’s role. There is a careful balance to be struck. As well as confident, self-assured boys, we need confident, self-assured girls who are clear about their boundaries and what behaviours they are willing to accept and not accept. That means not telling them that selling their bodies is empowering, not expecting them always to be kind, and not telling them that the feelings of men are more important than their safety. On that point, I hope we might hear something today about the Government’s unresolved approach to gender-questioning guidance for schools and the release of the long-awaited code of practice on single-sex spaces following the recent Supreme Court ruling. The Government cannot claim to support healthy relationships so long as they leave schools to navigate the issue without proper guidance. It is incumbent on this Government to reinforce rules that entitle our girls and women to privacy from males when they are getting changed—that is basic safeguarding. We received the draft non-statutory guidance on gender-questioning children back in December 2023, but two years later, schools and parents are still waiting for it to be published. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see both the gender-questioning guidance and the revised code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission? My final point is on the need to be honest about where the deeper formation of relationships happens. Schools matter and good teachers can be life-changing, but let us not lose sight of the fact that children spend most of their time outside the classroom. The attitudes that shape relationships are forged primarily at home, as well as online and in peer groups. If we want healthy relationships, we cannot pretend that a curriculum document can substitute for a loving and nurturing family structure. Families can come in all different shapes and sizes, but the important thing is that they are loving, nurturing and respectful. Children learn how to interact with others from their main caregivers. What are the Minister’s plans to support strong families, given that it is likely to be the most impactful way a Government can ensure healthier relationships?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made. We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example. Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women. Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today. We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity. Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production. If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it. Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered. Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses. In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow. A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate and on the incredible persistence with which he has fought for his constituents. As my hon. Friend made clear, a functioning postal service is not a nice-to-have in rural Britain; rather, it is part of the vital infrastructure of daily life. The post is how people receive medical letters, time-sensitive official correspondence and the things they cannot simply pick up on the high street. For small businesses, farms and sole traders, it is how goods, invoices and documents move. We should not underestimate the harms when this important service fails. I want to cover two linked issues: the resilience of the post office network; and the reliability of deliveries and the way that failures fall hardest on rural areas. As of October 2025, there were about 11,638 post office branches in the UK, and the company is committed to maintaining about 11,500 branches. The Post Office is publicly owned, but the vast majority of branches are run by independent postmasters inside local shops. In my experience, that is why they are so deeply woven into rural life, and why, when a branch closes, the town or village feels it immediately and deeply. The network is supposed to be underpinned by access criteria, including a requirement that 95% of the rural population should be within three miles of a post office, and that 95% of the population of every postcode district should be within six miles of one. Even remote communities have a minimum level of access. Those are sensible measures of access, and it is therefore deeply concerning that the Department for Business and Trade Green Paper on the future of the Post Office explicitly asks whether to keep the existing requirement, remove the minimum 11,500 branch requirement or replace it with a different framework altogether. Rural Britain has heard that language before: “a different way of meeting obligations” is often a Whitehall euphemism for a quiet downgrade under which the network looks stable on paper but becomes thinner in practice, with reduced hours, reduced services and longer journeys for those without cars. Although the Government appear to be drifting, the Conservative party is clear about what the Post Office is for. It is more than a business; it is part of the UK’s social and economic fabric, especially in rural areas, and especially as bank branches continue to vanish from our high streets. For many communities, the post office is now the most realistic place to do basic banking, withdraw cash or deposit takings. There is also a straightforward point about support. The nationwide network, especially in rural areas, will not always be commercially viable based on pure retail footfall alone. That is why public funding has played a role. The Conservative Government provided more than £2.5 billion in funding in the past decade to sustain the nationwide network, including support for branches in uncommercial areas. That turned out to be money well spent, in the light of the ongoing use of the post office network. Post office data shows record levels of cash deposits at branches and significant use by both personal and business customers, alongside the roll-out of banking hubs operated in partnership with Cash Access UK. When the Minister responds, I hope we will hear some reassurance about the support for the post office network. Can we have a commitment today to retaining a minimum network size of at least 11,500 branches? Will we keep the rural and postcode district access criteria and will sub-postmasters be properly supported so that rural branches do not become financially untenable? I now turn to deliveries, which is where constituents, including my own, are impacted when the service breaks down. The universal postal service is a promise that has been repeatedly broken. In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing its 2024-25 delivery targets, finding that only 77% of first-class mail and 92.5% of second-class mail was delivered on time, far below the long-standing universal service targets. Ofcom has since moved to reform parts of the universal service obligation, including allowing second-class letters to be delivered on alternate weekdays Monday to Friday and adjusting headline targets while introducing new backstop measures designed to prevent extreme delays. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about sustainability and falling letter volumes, but reform must not become cover for a two-tier Britain where rural residents simply wait longer as a matter of course. The focus must now be on delivery offices, staffing and day-to-day operational reality. In my own Reigate constituency we face ongoing concerns about the standard of postal services in the village of Banstead. Constituents have raised this with me repeatedly since the general election, and with good reason. A key issue appears to be staffing. Royal Mail has admitted to higher than normal levels of sickness and vacancies, and when I visited the delivery office that serves Banstead it was clear that morale there was extremely low. Meanwhile there is an operational inefficiency built in. Banstead is served by a delivery office based in Epsom, meaning staff travel before rounds even begin. I think we can all guess what that leads to. One constituent received 10 items of post on 30 January after receiving none in the preceding 10 days. Others report the same pattern of long gaps followed by sudden floods. If that is the experience of a well-connected part of Surrey, it should shock no one that deeply rural areas are hit even harder. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire highlighted severe delays in his constituency. The frustration felt by his constituents is wholly understandable. So what should happen next? First, the Minister should make it clear that regulatory fines are not the end of the story. Ofcom’s enforcement action was accompanied by requirements for Royal Mail to take corrective steps. The Government should press for transparent reporting at delivery office level with a particular focus on rural performance so that communities can see whether their service is improving and where the problems sit. Secondly, Ministers must ensure that any future changes to the universal service protect rural users. If second class is delivered less often, that should not translate into worse outcomes for rural areas. Backstop measures are welcome, but they must be enforced and felt in places that have been left behind. People do not care about clever statistics if their letters still arrive late, in clumps, or not at all. Thirdly, the Government should recognise the interdependence of the system. The post office is not a shop counter; it is part of the national postal infrastructure, so any reform must be judged by a simple test: does it improve the lived experience of rural users? I will end by returning to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire, who has done what good MPs should do: listened locally, engaged with the operators and brought the issue to Parliament for debate. To be clear, neither he nor rural Britain are asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness and competence. A letter posted in this country should arrive when the sender is told it will arrive. A rural post office branch should not be quietly allowed to wither. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope we will hear some meaningful commitments on the issues today.

• 28 Jan 2026 · LGBTQ+ Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It has been 146 days since the Equality and Human Rights Commission laid the revised code of practice before Government. Have the Government asked the EHRC to make any changes to the code of practice? If they have, can the Minister tell us what they are?